Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

Posted on: March 9, 2012 - 1:30am

The Theist

Posts: 217

Joined: 2012-03-09

Offline

Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

Hello everyone,

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

It depends on what kind of denomination of atheism you're talking about since they're many different "atheistic" denominations. And there are schisms and break offs as well.

The majority and the pot smokers who made this site are called weak atheists via George Smith, "A Case Against God." I believe it came out in 77 but became popularaized in the last 20 years in terms of approach yet most don't even know it's roots.

But in reality, "weak atheism" is really agnosticism just under a different name. It basically says that it doesn't deny God's "existence," or it's not that it doesn't believe in God. They say this:

We have a lack of faith regarding God.

Thus twisting the etymological and even the usus loquendi meaning of what an atheist really is.

They have a little thing about this somewhere, but actually they are agnostics that call eachother atheists.

And in the words of O'Hair

[quote ] an agnostic is really just an atheist with no guts

Have fun playing with the pagans.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Welcome aboard, I hope you enjoy your time here. You'll fit in well with the discussions here.

The most simplified and all encompassing definition of atheism is simply: the absence of belief in a god or gods.

All of us are born as atheists, when we gain a belief in god we become theists.

As for god... it's more appropriate for you to tell us what you think god is.

Thanks for the welcome, Sapient, before I get started is that Kirk Cameron standing next to, you I presume? Had to ask.

Okay. as for me, what I think a god is, is this. Anything that is considered by the observer to be mighty or is venerated. For example, The Bible mentions many gods, and there are millions of them in the various world religions.

Moses was made a God to Pharaoh by Jehovah God, Satan was referred to in the Bible as the god of this world, the Judges of Israel were gods. Paul said even ones own belly could be a god. Eric Clapton has been considered a god, as has Frodo Baggins. Jesus Christ was a god.

So if anyone or anything can be a god. An inanimate object, a fictional character, an historical person or a religious person, real or imagined, how could there be an absence of belief in a god or gods in the name of rationality?

The Bible does not mention many God's in the contest of ontology but ad hominem. It also mentions them in relation to the fact that various people and tribes viewed them as gods. However, the Bible does not actually theologically relay ontological Gods via polytheism (Isaiah 43:10).

You need to understand that not everything in the Bible is true and at the same time realize that everything is true. This is both the cases in separate unrelated contexts.

For example when the Serpent told Eve that if she were to eat the pomengranite, that she would be like God. That was not true. However, it is true that the Serpent said this and deceived Eve.

You also have to understand the dichtomony concept between ontological and econonimcal understanding.

Have you even read the Bible from cover to cover at least once my heretical friend?

I see that you are a pagan heretic on his way to rot in hell with the rest of the pagans on here.

welcome. it's nice to meet you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

It depends on what kind of denomination of atheism you're talking about since they're many different "atheistic" denominations. And there are schisms and break offs as well.

This would require organizational skills and the atheists are, thus far, about as organized as an animal one might encounter running around a farmyard with it's head cut off. I do believe there are variations of atheism in a more general application, unorganized, and a rising trend in atheistic quasi denominational divisions. These seem to be an attempt to reconcile the fallacy of their paradigm.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The majority and the pot smokers who made this site are called weak atheists via George Smith, "A Case Against God." I believe it came out in 77 but became popularaized in the last 20 years in terms of approach yet most don't even know it's roots.

But in reality, "weak atheism" is really agnosticism just under a different name. It basically says that it doesn't deny God's "existence," or it's not that it doesn't believe in God. They say this:

We have a lack of faith regarding God.

Thus twisting the etymological and even the usus loquendi meaning of what an atheist really is.

They have a little thing about this somewhere, but actually they are agnostics that call each other atheists.

And in the words of O'Hair

Quote:

an agnostic is really just an atheist with no guts

To me an agnostic is the more practical, less political, emotional and perhaps more intelligent of the two because they have the sense not to make such a bold assumption based upon a faulty premise. Namely, that there is no god.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Have fun playing with the pagans.

You realize that baptism is pagan in origin? Wind chimes, tombstones, wedding rings, months in the Jewish calendar, many of the first century Christians, and the names of Jesus and some of his disciples, as well as the trinity inspired by Plato, immortal soul inspired by Socrates, cross inspired by Tammuz and Constantine, Easter inspired by the celebrations to the goddess of heaven and consort of Baal, Astarte, hell inspired by Dante and Milton?

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

IT IS PRECISELY because a "god/deity/super natural" can be whatever the person wants to make up that we reject it.

Outside the issue of religion and superstition and god claims in every day life, we don't simply accept something because someone claims it.

If your boss when you went to collect your check said "It's a check unicorn who will pay you" or "It is a check spaghetti monster that will pay you" "it's in an invisible checking account in an invisible bank with no account number, just make up your own account number and the money will be there" you'd think the guy was nuts.

You are making the mistake here of going "We don't know everything so it is true until proven untrue"

Ok, "I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass", so because I uttered that it is true until you prove I cant.

You know damned will it isn't true and if I thought it was it would be up to ME to prove it, it would not be up to you to disprove it. There are lots of claims humans make on all sorts of issues, the ability to utter words does not make the claim credible.

I agree that a god can be anything, so the truth is "god" is a product of human imagination.

Dawkins describes god belief in "The God Delusion" as the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight. It is our own gap filling in a false attempt to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

In evolution a placebo, sugar pill, or bad guess CAN create real benefits like safety in numbers. The Ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful in falsely believing the sun was a god. That real benefit of safety in numbers did NOT make the sun a god.

So what is god? FICTION, merely human wishful thinking.

Gods/deities/super natural claims were not around 1 billion years ago, and no god claimed in the past or the gods claimed now, or any invented in the future, will be around after our species goes extinct because there will be no future generations to sell our superstitious fictional myths to.

Humans want a "who" to fill in the gap, not because an invisible who exists, but because it is a reflection of their own desires. The universe nor the life on this planet need a "who" to occur anymore than a hurricane needs Neptune to occur.

What is going on is a "what" not a magical who with a magic wand. Reality and nature, both the stuff that makes us go "awe" and the bad stuff that scares the shit out of us, are BOTH a product of processes, all of it. There is no need for Superman vs Kriptonite to explain the good or bad in life.

Gods are mere fiction, they are the psychological manifestation in anthropomorphic form as a reflection of our own selfish narcissism. I forgot which ancient Greek said it "If horses had gods their gods would look like horses".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Welcome. As for your question all I need to say is "Good Job Brian". And nobody here agrees on everything. I won't bore the others by repeating my views so I direct you to 2 of my recent posts: "inherency" and "Hypatia's Bloody Murder". Read thru some of the others' recent posts from the last few weeks to get a better idea. you can also click on their name and "track". And the bests posts aren't necessarily the ones with the most replies. Don't be afraid to bring back up some of those discussions.

Looks like Jean gave you a warm welcome by condemning you to hell, so you should be real comfortable here.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

This would require organizational skills and the atheists are, thus far, about as organized as an animal one might encounter running around a farmyard with it's head cut off. I do believe there are variations of atheism in a more general application, unorganized, and a rising trend in atheistic quasi denominational divisions. These seem to be an attempt to reconcile the fallacy of their paradigm.

Perhaps atheists are as organised as people that don't hunt. A theist is someone that believes in at least one god, an atheist is someone that is not a theist. As for the fallacy of our paradigm... from what you have so far posted, you have created a tautology between a "god" and " Anything that is considered by the observer to be mighty or is venerated ". That may be a fundamental property of your paradigm, but it sure isn't mine. Also, you can have an opinion regarding my paradigm, but you don't get to define it based on something that I do not do, namely believe in god.

Myself, and the majority of atheists on here, consider ourselves to be agnostics atheists. Meaning that I do not believe in any god, but I allow the very remote possibility that a god may exist. I most definitely do not believe in a god that is not logically consistent.

The Theist wrote:

To me an agnostic is the more practical, less political, emotional and perhaps more intelligent of the two because they have the sense not to make such a bold assumption based upon a faulty premise. Namely, that there is no god.

Ok, you seem to define your terms to fit your paradigm rather then base your paradigm on actual definitions. An agnostic is someone that believes something (most often a deity) unknowable. This says nothing about their pragmatism, political inclination, psychology or iQ. I'm sure you can back up those assertions with examples and statistics, and you didn't just pull that out of your ass.

Welcome to the forum otherwise, I will gladly debate you on any topic of your choosing. I hope you don't turn irrational and vulgar like the majority of theists in here.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

The Bible does not mention many God's in the contest of ontology but ad hominem. It also mentions them in relation to the fact that various people and tribes viewed them as gods. However, the Bible does not actually theologically relay ontological Gods via polytheism (Isaiah 43:10).

Its called henotheism. At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is prophetically called El Gibbohr, which means mighty God. At Psalm 8:5 the angels are referred to as elohim, which was quoted by Paul at Hebrews 2:6-8. At Psalm 82:1,6 the human judges of Israel are called gods, and so Jesus quoted thus at John 10:34, 35. Moses was told by Jehovah God to be a god to pharoah and Aaron. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1)

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You need to understand that not everything in the Bible is true and at the same time realize that everything is true. This is both the cases in separate unrelated contexts.

For example when the Serpent told Eve that if she were to eat the pomengranite, that she would be like God. That was not true. However, it is true that the Serpent said this and deceived Eve.

I understand this.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You also have to understand the dichtomony concept between ontological and econonimcal understanding.

Have you even read the Bible from cover to cover at least once my heretical friend?

Many Bible translations many times. You need to forget the bullshit of pagan influenced organized apostate religion. Get your head out of your ass and do some research.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I see that you are a pagan heretic on his way to rot in hell with the rest of the pagans on here.

Here, read this, where it talks about Jesus and Jehovah God in hell, and the silly pagan superstition from Dante and Milton.

IT IS PRECISELY because a "god/deity/super natural" can be whatever the person wants to make up that we reject it.

That makes absolutely no sense. If the basic definition of a god is anything mighty or venerated why on earth couldn't it be anyone or anything in accord with the beholder. You could say precisely the same thing about art, music, love, science, history, or almost anything.

Brian37 wrote:

Outside the issue of religion and superstition and god claims in every day life, we don't simply accept something because someone claims it.

If your boss when you went to collect your check said "It's a check unicorn who will pay you" or "It is a check spaghetti monster that will pay you" "it's in an invisible checking account in an invisible bank with no account number, just make up your own account number and the money will be there" you'd think the guy was nuts.

True, but if the guy simply gave you the check to do what you wanted to do with it it wouldn't be his fault if you wiped your ass with it and flushed it down the toilet. The Bible warns the reader to test even the inspired expression, God's word, it warns against an operation of error, and praises the Beroeans(Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1,6)

Brian37 wrote:

You are making the mistake here of going "We don't know everything so it is true until proven untrue"

You mean, like science?

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, "I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass", so because I uttered that it is true until you prove I cant.

You know damned will it isn't true and if I thought it was it would be up to ME to prove it, it would not be up to you to disprove it. There are lots of claims humans make on all sorts of issues, the ability to utter words does not make the claim credible.

Why would I even care? If you labored under what I alleged was nothing more than an illusion, have at it. However, if you can't tell the difference between a turd and a Lamborghini don't get all overexcited when someone corrects you.

Brian37 wrote:

I agree that a god can be anything, so the truth is "god" is a product of human imagination.

Most gods are. Some gods are historic persons, fictional persons, myths and real. We were talking about the atheist's definition of a god and you and I agree. However, you miss the point in your zeal for denouncing the existence of one god in particular you take offense at, who's actual existence you can't scientifically or rationally deny simply because 1.) You seem to know very little about him and 2.) You can't test the supernatural and you can't prove non-existence. The point you are missing is that many gods exist, both supernatural and natural, and those who don't physically exist are still in existence as gods. Zeus isn't real, but he is a god nevertheless, so gods exist and the atheist concept is nonsensical.

Brian37 wrote:

Dawkins describes god belief in "The God Delusion" as the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight. It is our own gap filling in a false attempt to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

When it comes to theology and philosophy if Richard Dawkins were any more obtuse he would be Gomer Pyle. Watching, for example, him and Bill O'Reilly debate is like watching Gollum argue with himself.

Brian37 wrote:

In evolution a placebo, sugar pill, or bad guess CAN create real benefits like safety in numbers. The Ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful in falsely believing the sun was a god. That real benefit of safety in numbers did NOT make the sun a god.

Yes it does.

Brian37 wrote:

So what is god? FICTION, merely human wishful thinking.

Gods/deities/super natural claims were not around 1 billion years ago, and no god claimed in the past or the gods claimed now, or any invented in the future, will be around after our species goes extinct because there will be no future generations to sell our superstitious fictional myths to.

I would sooner see the Lamborghini you shat than the claims you make regarding 1 billion years ago or after our species' alleged extinction. Typical atheist fashion, next you will tell me how the primitives invent the gods out of superstitious ignorance the same as you do in the present.

Brian37 wrote:

Humans want a "who" to fill in the gap, not because an invisible who exists, but because it is a reflection of their own desires. The universe nor the life on this planet need a "who" to occur anymore than a hurricane needs Neptune to occur.

What is going on is a "what" not a magical who with a magic wand. Reality and nature, both the stuff that makes us go "awe" and the bad stuff that scares the shit out of us, are BOTH a product of processes, all of it. There is no need for Superman vs Kriptonite to explain the good or bad in life.

Gods are mere fiction, they are the psychological manifestation in anthropomorphic form as a reflection of our own selfish narcissism. I forgot which ancient Greek said it "If horses had gods their gods would look like horses".

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I went to your site that links from your signature line and I have a question.

Are you the reinvented David Henson?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

Welcome. As for your question all I need to say is "Good Job Brian". And nobody here agrees on everything. I won't bore the others by repeating my views so I direct you to 2 of my recent posts: "inherency" and "Hypatia's Bloody Murder". Read thru some of the others' recent posts from the last few weeks to get a better idea. you can also click on their name and "track". And the bests posts aren't necessarily the ones with the most replies. Don't be afraid to bring back up some of those discussions.

Looks like Jean gave you a warm welcome by condemning you to hell, so you should be real comfortable here.

Thanks for the welcome and I may take you up on the offer of resurrecting old discussions. And yes, I've had the ironic misfortune of having been judged and condemned to the pagan mythological all eternity for being a heretical pagan. It is nice to have the rare opportunity of discourse with a theologian capable of forming complete articulate sentences - if not a trifle verbose. At least I won't be the only crazy believer in this den of unwashed heathens . . .

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I went to your site that links from your signature line and I have a question.

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I went to your site that links from your signature line and I have a question.

Are you the reinvented David Henson?

Reinvented? The same old David Henson.

Welcome back David.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

People claim invisible friends. They have no evidence for their claimed invisible friend. It is stupid to believe that crap. Wanting a claim to be true does not make it true. A history of tradition does not make a god real, otherwise the sun would be a god. Quoting a book does not make the claim true. If I quote Harry Potter does that mean little boys can fly around on brooms?

I have evidence of BOTH my boss and my paycheck. You have NO evidence of your invisible friend.

"My invisible friend paid you, you just don't know it", is bullshit logic. You wouldn't buy that if someone with a different pet diety said "Allah paid you, you just don't know it." "Vishnu paid you, you just don't know it". Or "You refuse to believe he paid you", DAMNED RIGHT, "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so" Mark Twain.

I doesn't work when they try to pull that bullshit argument and it wont work just because you claim a different invisible friend.

Gods are merely products of human imagination, nothing more. It wasn't true when people thought the sun was a god. No one is going to get 72 virgins. Rubbing a fat man's belly wont bring you luck. There is no such thing as Big Foot, and we were not dropped here by space aliens.

"You're just in denial"

"You hate god"

"You just don't understand"

I am in denial of pink unicorns too. I am in denial of Big Foot too.

I cant hate pink unicorns. They don't exist. Do you hate pink unicorns?

I understand that people make shit up and like believing the shit they make up. You accept that other people make shit up and believe crap you know isn't true.

You are not doing anything differently than any other human living now or has lived in the past that has a superstitious invisible fictional pet deity they like falsely believing in.

Diety/god/ super natural claims are merely the anthropomorphic gaps people use as a crutch because they don't want to face reality. God belief is a sugar pill, nothing more.

So I'll give you the same challenge I have given other Christians, Jews, Muslims, and even a pantheist.

Go work on getting a scientific model worked up that can be tested and falsified and independently repeated and verified. Explain your methodology and SHOW every detail of your work so that it can be verified. When you can do that, you can take that to every university in the world and teach it. You will make boon at the patient office and you would surely win a Nobel Prize.

Otherwise the rational option is that humans merely like the idea of having a super hero save them, Just like the Egyptians liked falsely believing the sun was a super hero god.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

Dang. I take one day off from posting; hopefully Brian37 didn't post any of his gibberish on "motifs" and "labels". He can be very frustrating if you try and debate with him so I suggest you ignore him. He's worthless as a debater.

My definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in a creator. I do not like to use the word "god" because it is very vague. If you are speaking about the "god of abraham" or the "gods of buddhism" it means two completely different meanings.

The "god of abraham" in general christian terms is considered the creator of life, the universe or all things seen and unseen; is also all knowing, all seeing and omnipotent.

A god is a supernatural being that exists conceptually but not literally.

True, but also, from the dictionary:

"6. an image of a deity, or an idol"

"7. a deified person or object."

"8. the upper balcony in a theater."

"9. the spectators in this part of the balcony."

Do you see the need for clarification, by definition of atheism, if a god can be any person or object?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

An atheist ( or perhaps, an agnostic atheist ) is someone who is unconvinced in the actual existence of god ( or gods ) but does not necessarily reject the possibility of such things.

You don't see the myopic nature of such a belief? What interests me is that it speaks volumes about the belief, or lack thereof. An atheist is someone who doesn't want to believe. Doesn't know any better and it wouldn't matter anyway. They just don't want to believe.There is nothing wrong with that until they start mocking others beliefs or criticizing the Bible out of ignorance.

Dang. I take one day off from posting; hopefully Brian37 didn't post any of his gibberish on "motifs" and "labels". He can be very frustrating if you try and debate with him so I suggest you ignore him. He's worthless as a debater.

I know Brian well enough.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

My definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in a creator. I do not like to use the word "god" because it is very vague. If you are speaking about the "god of Abraham" or the "gods of Buddhism" it means two completely different meanings.

At least you have the sense to be more specific about it.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The "god of Abraham" in general christian terms is considered the creator of life, the universe or all things seen and unseen; is also all knowing, all seeing and omnipotent.

The mythological God of apostate Christendom is allegedly all knowing, all seeing and omnipotent, omnipresent, but not the God of the Bible, Jehovah. He isn't all knowing, though capable of getting to know whatever he chooses, thus he asked Adam and Cain what they had done and sent angels to see if things were as bad in Sodom and Gomorrah as the complaints in prayer against them indicated.

He isn't omnipresent because otherwise it would be pointless to say his position is fixed in heaven, or he will reside with us once sin is done away with, or he filled the temple.

So why don't you wow us with your theistic argument? I, for one, am all ears.

Well, ye of little faith, consider this little adventure of ours like a book tour. You know like every time the ridiculous Richard Dawkins writes some trite for the atheists to gobble up he goes on a book tour? Well my book is The Theist and, unlike Dawkins' typical blurbs this one is free and based upon logic and reason rather than fallacy, poor philosophy, and intellectually retarded analogies.

However, unlike Dawkins work The Theist tells you something you don't want to know.

In the meantime, while I am here is there any specific theistic discussion you would like to engage in?

Perhaps atheists are as organised as people that don't hunt. A theist is someone that believes in at least one god, an atheist is someone that is not a theist. As for the fallacy of our paradigm... from what you have so far posted, you have created a tautology between a "god" and "

Anything that is considered by the observer to be mighty or is venerated

". That may be a fundamental property of your paradigm, but it sure isn't mine. Also, you can have an opinion regarding my paradigm, but you don't get to define it based on something that I do not do, namely believe in god.

Myself, and the majority of atheists on here, consider ourselves to be agnostics atheists. Meaning that I do not believe in any god, but I allow the very remote possibility that a god may exist. I most definitely do not believe in a god that is not logically consistent.

If, by dictionary or biblical definition a god is any person or thing deified, the Hebrew El and variations thereof being from the root meaning "mighty, strong" as an "agnostic atheist" I seriously doubt your qualifications to judge the logical consistency of yogurt, let alone the aforementioned god.

Ktulu wrote:

Ok, you seem to define your terms to fit your paradigm rather then base your paradigm on actual definitions. An agnostic is someone that believes something (most often a deity) unknowable. This says nothing about their pragmatism, political inclination, psychology or iQ. I'm sure you can back up those assertions with examples and statistics, and you didn't just pull that out of your ass.

Actually, I just pulled it out of my ass. Some people who are intelligent don't listen properly. I said "To me . . . " It was my opinion based upon years of observations. I stand by those observations.

Ktulu wrote:

Welcome to the forum otherwise, I will gladly debate you on any topic of your choosing. I hope you don't turn irrational and vulgar like the majority of theists in here.

Thanks for the welcome, Sapient, before I get started is that Kirk Cameron standing next to, you I presume? Had to ask.

Yes, I took him to school on TV once, this picture was taken at the end of the night with him admiring me.

Quote:

So if anyone or anything can be a god. An inanimate object, a fictional character, an historical person or a religious person, real or imagined, how could there be an absence of belief in a god or gods in the name of rationality?

You're right, if anything can be god than we couldn't have a disbelief. I went through a short phase where I believed mother nature is god, but why muddy the waters like that? Why redefine words? I could just as well say that I believe an asshole is a good person. And I think you're an asshole.

It makes conversation confusing. We can't just define words how we like them, and you and I both know that when Christians or Muslims (two biggest religions) refer to god, they are not referring to him in the manner you stated. I created this site and spend my time responding to those people who believe in those gods. If you said you think you yourself are your own god, I'm inclined to not waste my time arguing with you about it. I have more important fish to fry.

If, by dictionary or biblical definition a god is any person or thing deified, the Hebrew El and variations thereof being from the root meaning "mighty, strong" as an "agnostic atheist" I seriously doubt your qualifications to judge the logical consistency of yogurt, let alone the aforementioned god.

What would qualify me to judge logical consistency in general in your opinion? Is there a particular degree or discipline that is more, or less susceptible to logical fallacies? Also it helps to define your terms when debating. Most commonly a god is not a person or thing deified, that definition would best be suited by idol. However if you want to play semantics, I'm game.

free dictionary dot com wrote:

god (gd)

n.

1. God

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

note that definitions are listed by their frequency of occurrence.

wikipedia wrote:

God is the English name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism.[1]

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

Ktulu wrote:

Ok, you seem to define your terms to fit your paradigm rather then base your paradigm on actual definitions. An agnostic is someone that believes something (most often a deity) unknowable. This says nothing about their pragmatism, political inclination, psychology or iQ. I'm sure you can back up those assertions with examples and statistics, and you didn't just pull that out of your ass.

As I've mentioned, you are at best being misleading, at worst ignorant.

The Theist wrote:

Actually, I just pulled it out of my ass. Some people who are intelligent don't listen properly. I said "To me . . . " It was my opinion based upon years of observations. I stand by those observations.

Nice try, "to me" is a redundant use of words, everything that I type can be prefixed by "to me" it doesn't automatically mark it as a subjective opinion, it is understood that what I am saying comes from me. You made an assertion and now you're trying to back paddle, I'll let this slide for coherency sake.

So what is your flavor of theism? What do you believe and why?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc

Do you see the need for clarification..... if a god can be any person or object?

No, I see someone attempting to be clever and who is obviously immune to context. For example, if I called you a "fag" ( noun ) do you think I'm calling you a cigarette ?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

An atheist ( or perhaps, an agnostic atheist ) is someone who is unconvinced in the actual existence of god ( or gods ) but does not necessarily reject the possibility of such things.

The Theist wrote:

An atheist is someone who doesn't want to believe. Doesn't know any better and it wouldn't matter anyway. They just don't want to believe.

I was a believing Christian for approximately 50% percent of my life ( I'm 53 ) and if I was simply anti-god in my opinions it's doubtful that I would have stayed within a religious movement that I thought was utter bullshit. I believed in Christianity's alleged God because I wantedto believe and because I thereafter considered the Bible to be true.

The Theist wrote:

There is nothing wrong with that until they start mocking others beliefs or criticizing the Bible out of ignorance.

You certainly seem to be dealing with atheists ( and our motives / knowledge status ) from a position of complete ignorance. There are many atheists who are former Christians ( such as myself ) and even atheists who are former clergy so to make such a blanket assumption says more about you than us.

My personal rejection of Christianity and its alleged God was based upon gathering additional information regarding the Bible, not a lack of it. "Ignorance" was what sustained and preserved my religious faith. Knowledge is what destroyed it.

The mods could have simply changed your old account name to be this one if you had asked.

No need to go over all the positions once again that you have already argued here when you were David Henson a year or 2 ago.

I like your new avatar far better than your old one by the way. I've seen it somewhere before.

As I recall you left and weren't all that happy with this forum. Has something changed to bring you back?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

The mods could have simply changed your old account name to be this one if you had asked.

No need to go over all the positions once again that you have already argued here when you were David Henson a year or 2 ago.

I like your new avatar far better than your old one by the way. I've seen it somewhere before.

As I recall you left and weren't all that happy with this forum. Has something changed to bring you back?

I was posting in a half dozen different forums with half dozen different names. This time around I wanted to keep it simple so I took the name of the new website which came from a story I am working on about a futuristic formerly human android atheist spiritual journey of discovery.

The mods could have simply changed your old account name to be this one if you had asked.

No need to go over all the positions once again that you have already argued here when you were David Henson a year or 2 ago.

I like your new avatar far better than your old one by the way. I've seen it somewhere before.

As I recall you left and weren't all that happy with this forum. Has something changed to bring you back?

I was posting in a half dozen different forums with half dozen different names. This time around I wanted to keep it simple so I took the name of the new website which came from a story I am working on about a futuristic formerly human android atheist spiritual journey of discovery.

The Avatar I found and thought it was an uncredited wallpaper of an android, so I used it. Months later I discovered it was the robot mascot for Eset antivirus.

I don't think I ever left the forum, I just was working on other things. I sort of was gone for a while and came back to remove my links when I decided to take the old website down.

I read what you have on The Pathway Machine. Interesting so far. Not laughing.

That's how I figured out who you were, the name, The Pathway Machine.

Eset, that's where I've seen your avatar.

I recalled you removing the links.

How's the story coming? Do you have more?

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

David, Jean is another version of "The One True Christian Syndrome" but not like your version of "One True Christian".

He appears to be a Calvinist still studying philopsophy and English.

Jean's favorite word is "via".

Jean's 2nd favorite words are "ad hominem".

I'm not sure what his favorite color is.

He is very courteous always signing off with respectfully with his quote from the forged book of Jude.

The Theist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You need to understand that not everything in the Bible is true and at the same time realize that everything is true. This is both the cases in separate unrelated contexts.

For example when the Serpent told Eve that if she were to eat the pomengranite, that she would be like God. That was not true. However, it is true that the Serpent said this and deceived Eve.

I understand this.

There is so much wrong with this.

You and Jean Jean can have some real fun discussing the various aspects of these storytelling legends, assuming Jean has the time to do so when he's not

studying for his next quiz for his philosophy 101 class. Or perhaps his remedial English course.

The Theist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You also have to understand the dichtomony concept between ontological and econonimcal understanding.

Have you even read the Bible from cover to cover at least once my heretical friend?

Many Bible translations many times. You need to forget the bullshit of pagan influenced organized apostate religion. Get your head out of your ass and do some research.

What does economics have to do with storytelling?

David, Jean Jean has a library of thousands of books, reportedly enough to fill a 9 x 12 room from floor to ceiling (or so he claimed when he supposedly moved).

The Theist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I see that you are a pagan heretic on his way to rot in hell with the rest of the pagans on here.

Here, read this, where it talks about Jesus and Jehovah God in hell, and the silly pagan superstition from Dante and Milton.

David, I like your writing on your site. I don't obviously agree with all of it but the fiction is pretty good.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

You need to understand that not everything in the Bible is true and at the same time realize that everything is true. This is both the cases in separate unrelated contexts.

For example when the Serpent told Eve that if she were to eat the pomegranate, that she would be like God. That was not true. However, it is true that the Serpent said this and deceived Eve.

I understand this.

There is so much wrong with this.

You and Jean Jean can have some real fun discussing the various aspects of these storytelling legends, assuming Jean has the time to do so when he's not

studying for his next quiz for his philosophy 101 class. Or perhaps his remedial English course.

Actually it makes sense. All he is really saying is that the Bible gives a true account of the events it presents, even when some of the people in those events don't tell the truth. It isn't always easy to spot. Two examples of this are the Israeli spies sent out in the promised land (See What The Bible Says About Giants) and The Witch of En-dor. (1 Samuel 28:7-18)

In those cases the spies reported the Nephilim were in the land because they were afraid to fight the inhabitants, when in fact there was no such thing, and in the case of En-dor the spirit of "Samuel" was actually a demonic spirit impersonating the dead prophet. Jean's example of the serpent and Eve is another case.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

David, I like your writing on your site. I don't obviously agree with all of it but the fiction is pretty good.

I'm no writer by any means, but it is something I wanted to do for a long time. The story has been developing for years, beginning with my first real website "Earthling" I started working on the story and the website because arguing with atheists and theists about the Bible and religion exclusively gets old.

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

You'll notice no one argues with me. At least not any more. Look up all my posts and you will have your answer. Carry on.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.

I for one don't believe that theists really believe what they claim to believe. I think you see a social or emotional advantage to being part of a faith based community, so you adjust your beliefs accordingly. But in your in core you are at least agnostic. Theism is all a big act for your own convenience.

The real debate ought to be if you really believe what you claim.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

IT IS PRECISELY because a "god/deity/super natural" can be whatever the person wants to make up that we reject it.

That makes absolutely no sense. If the basic definition of a god is anything mighty or venerated why on earth couldn't it be anyone or anything in accord with the beholder. You could say precisely the same thing about art, music, love, science, history, or almost anything.

Brian37 wrote:

Outside the issue of religion and superstition and god claims in every day life, we don't simply accept something because someone claims it.

If your boss when you went to collect your check said "It's a check unicorn who will pay you" or "It is a check spaghetti monster that will pay you" "it's in an invisible checking account in an invisible bank with no account number, just make up your own account number and the money will be there" you'd think the guy was nuts.

True, but if the guy simply gave you the check to do what you wanted to do with it it wouldn't be his fault if you wiped your ass with it and flushed it down the toilet. The Bible warns the reader to test even the inspired expression, God's word, it warns against an operation of error, and praises the Beroeans(Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1,6)

Brian37 wrote:

You are making the mistake here of going "We don't know everything so it is true until proven untrue"

You mean, like science?

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, "I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass", so because I uttered that it is true until you prove I cant.

You know damned will it isn't true and if I thought it was it would be up to ME to prove it, it would not be up to you to disprove it. There are lots of claims humans make on all sorts of issues, the ability to utter words does not make the claim credible.

Why would I even care? If you labored under what I alleged was nothing more than an illusion, have at it. However, if you can't tell the difference between a turd and a Lamborghini don't get all overexcited when someone corrects you.

Brian37 wrote:

I agree that a god can be anything, so the truth is "god" is a product of human imagination.

Most gods are. Some gods are historic persons, fictional persons, myths and real. We were talking about the atheist's definition of a god and you and I agree. However, you miss the point in your zeal for denouncing the existence of one god in particular you take offense at, who's actual existence you can't scientifically or rationally deny simply because 1.) You seem to know very little about him and 2.) You can't test the supernatural and you can't prove non-existence. The point you are missing is that many gods exist, both supernatural and natural, and those who don't physically exist are still in existence as gods. Zeus isn't real, but he is a god nevertheless, so gods exist and the atheist concept is nonsensical.

Brian37 wrote:

Dawkins describes god belief in "The God Delusion" as the moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight. It is our own gap filling in a false attempt to replace our parents and ignore our finite existence.

When it comes to theology and philosophy if Richard Dawkins were any more obtuse he would be Gomer Pyle. Watching, for example, him and Bill O'Reilly debate is like watching Gollum argue with himself.

Brian37 wrote:

In evolution a placebo, sugar pill, or bad guess CAN create real benefits like safety in numbers. The Ancient Egyptians for 3,000 years were successful in falsely believing the sun was a god. That real benefit of safety in numbers did NOT make the sun a god.

Yes it does.

Brian37 wrote:

So what is god? FICTION, merely human wishful thinking.

Gods/deities/super natural claims were not around 1 billion years ago, and no god claimed in the past or the gods claimed now, or any invented in the future, will be around after our species goes extinct because there will be no future generations to sell our superstitious fictional myths to.

I would sooner see the Lamborghini you shat than the claims you make regarding 1 billion years ago or after our species' alleged extinction. Typical atheist fashion, next you will tell me how the primitives invent the gods out of superstitious ignorance the same as you do in the present.

Brian37 wrote:

Humans want a "who" to fill in the gap, not because an invisible who exists, but because it is a reflection of their own desires. The universe nor the life on this planet need a "who" to occur anymore than a hurricane needs Neptune to occur.

What is going on is a "what" not a magical who with a magic wand. Reality and nature, both the stuff that makes us go "awe" and the bad stuff that scares the shit out of us, are BOTH a product of processes, all of it. There is no need for Superman vs Kriptonite to explain the good or bad in life.

Gods are mere fiction, they are the psychological manifestation in anthropomorphic form as a reflection of our own selfish narcissism. I forgot which ancient Greek said it "If horses had gods their gods would look like horses".

Nice sermon. Complete bullshit, though.

If tripe were scraple and grits you'd be a billionaire.

If you agree with me that "most gods" are crap, do yourself a favor and aim that logic at your own bullshit.

You should care if I literally believed I could fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. If I really believed that would you want me teaching auto mechanics at a high school? Would you vote me into a political office? Unfortunately most of humanity loves fiction and utopias .

But lucky for humanity you are the one person who has the cosmic red Bat Phone to the after life. Take a number bud. You are not the first or only person to attempt to sell snake oil. I am sorry you fell for it, and I hope you get out of it, but I wasn't born yesterday.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Thanks for the welcome, Sapient, before I get started is that Kirk Cameron standing next to, you I presume? Had to ask.

Yes, I took him to school on TV once, this picture was taken at the end of the night with him admiring me.

*cough*

Here I am, still wondering why I should give a flying fuck what BM or Kirk say. I keep coming up short on answers...

I suppose I need to figure out what kind of person Kirk or RayBM would have sway over.

Then I figure how to emulate such a mentality without going fuckballs insane.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

I for one don't believe that theists really believe what they claim to believe. I think you see a social or emotional advantage to being part of a faith based community, so you adjust your beliefs accordingly. But in your in core you are at least agnostic. Theism is all a big act for your own convenience.

The real debate ought to be if you really believe what you claim.

Some Jehovah's Witnesses approached a local hell fire and brimstone preacher and informed him that the Bible didn't really teach that there was a hell and to their surprise he said: "Oh, yes. I know." Taken aback they asked if the reason he taught it anyway was to scare his congregation into attendance and he burst out laughing at that and said: "The reason I teach it is I wouldn't have a job if I didn't."

I agree with you that most theists don't really believe what they claim to believe. It is a social or traditional advantage. Not an emotional one. Far from emotional.

I like the idea of a debate about if theism is really what I believe. I've never had that proposition.

I believe because I have no choice. It doesn't make me feel special or secure. I don't have a ticket to heaven or a fear of death or hell. I wasn't raised that way and everyone I know with the exception of one is atheist. I have no political, social, traditional or emotional motivation. It doesn't make me a better person. If, after nearly 20 years I discovered tomorrow that it was a lie or a hoax I would be on this forum bright and early shouting it from the rooftops just as I proclaim it's truth now. I would go back to being a practicing homosexual. I'm not ignorant about the Bible and I don't follow it blindly. Its not a crutch for me, I make no money from it. It brings me no sense of moral superiority, and produces no pretense, no show. I fuck up and make mistakes just like everyone else. I'm not the only guy in the world with this important message of salvation for the human race. I don't do the Jesus pose. I know children and mentally handicapped people who know this stuff. And all the other reasons atheists imagine a theist would have to believe from a logical perspective don't apply. Because it is the truth.

If you agree with me that "most gods" are crap, do yourself a favor and aim that logic at your own bullshit.

I didn't say crap, did I? They are myth, fables, legends, heroes, fictional, fantasy, or objects, important things in our lives like work, money, sex, ordinary things like knitting, reading, boating, exercise, sports, music, art, anything which anyone attributes might or venerates is a god. As well as supernatural, political, and religious relics. It is all the same, it all means the same thing.

Jehovah God didn't say to Moses: "I am just this supernatural dude so you can call me God, which means I am big and bad and mean and you made me up to control the people. Yeah, that will work."

He said I am your God. And before me (meaning that chronologically as well as in importance) there were no other gods. Not that there were no other gods because he warned the people not to have other gods. Because a God is anything you think is mighty or you venerate. I had to force myself not to put that in all caps.

Brian37 wrote:

But lucky for humanity you are the one person who has the cosmic red Bat Phone to the after life. Take a number bud. You are not the first or only person to attempt to sell snake oil. I am sorry you fell for it, and I hope you get out of it, but I wasn't born yesterday.

You go right on preaching to the choir, Brian, you go right on disbelieving. Don't you listen to the mean old theists!